2010.07.14 HRTO Complaint Carasco v. University of Windsor Et Al. Form 1
-
Upload
omar-ha-redeye -
Category
Documents
-
view
1.472 -
download
3
description
Transcript of 2010.07.14 HRTO Complaint Carasco v. University of Windsor Et Al. Form 1
APPENDIX 1
Complainant: Dr. Emily Carasco
Complaint: (1) Discrimination against Dr. Emily Carasco on the basis of race and sex, by the University of Windsor, University of Windsor Faculty of Law and Professor Richard Moon, contrary to section 5 of the Ontario Human Rights Code.
(2) Systemic discrimination on the basis of race and sex by the University of Windsor and University of Windsor Faculty of La,!" contrary to section 5 of the Ontario HUman Rights Code.
A. Complaint of Individual Discrimination on the Basis of Race and Sex
1. Overview
1. I applied for the position of Dean of the Faculty of Law, University of Windsor, in
November 2009, and as of February 2010 was oneaf the final two candidates on the
short-list. Individual respondent Professor Richard Moon made untrue allegations of
plagiarism against me on the eve of my final interview by the Decanal Search
Committee, when it was becoming clear that I had a serious chanoe of being chosen
over the other candidate. The Chair of the Search Committee, Dr. McCrone, committed
serious violations of my rights in dealing with these allegations.
2. Under Dr. McCrone's leadership the Committee also violated the rules
established by Senate By-law 10 for the conduct of a search. By-law 10 requires that
following a search, the Committee shall propose a name to Faculty Council. The
Committee failed to do so.
3. I was fully qualified for the position of Dean of the Faculty of law, and was the
only one of the two short-listed candidates to be so . I believe that the appointment was
denied to me because of discrimination on the basis of race and sex, on the part of the
Faculty of Law and the University of Windsor (responsible for creating the Search
Committee and for its actions) and Professor Moon. Put quite simply, the Faculty of Law
and the University of Windsor, in spite of the lip service paid to equity and social justice,
- 1 -
did not want a visible minority woman as Dean of the Faculty of Law, no matter how well
qualified. Moreover, my decades of advocacy on behalf of equity at the University, an
integral part of my identity as a visible minority woman, had left them in no doubt that in
my Deanship I would do more than pay lip service to equity, and this prospect was
unwelcome. Professor Moon's allegations of plagiarism provided a pretext to justify
resistance to my candidacy for the Dean's position. Rather than investigating and
dispelling them, Dr. McCrone and the Search Committee left them to linger to serve as.
a pretext for not recommending me although I met every requirement for the pOSition.
4. I also allege that the University and Faculty of Law have committed systemic
discrimination on the basis of race and sex, by purporting to accept the goal of
employment equity but doing little or nothing over many years to realize that goal, even
when bound by law to do so and even though numerous internal reports and
commissioned studies have urged it to do so. The University and Faculty of Law
leadership remain in the hands of white males; the discrepancy between formal and real
commitment to equality and equity has perpetuated a culture of privilege which white
men expect to have continue, and will defend with impunity. My treatment in the Dean
search is an aspect of that discrimination. That Professor Moon was able to sabotage
my candidacy for the Deanship through defamatory allegations based only on hearsay,
with no accountability for his behaviour, illustrates that the University and the Faculty 01
Law have, through their systemic discrimination on the basis of race and sex, created
an environment of impunity for individual acts of discrimination.
2. Career Track at University of Windsor
5. I was born in Bombay (Mumbai), India. My parents are Goan from India; I and
my family are Roman Catholic. We moved to Kampala, Uganda shortly after my birth.
was a Ugandan citizen until 1972 when General Idi Amin expelled Ugandans of Asian
origin from Uganda. I became a Canadian crtizen in February, 1983.
- 2 -
6. I received my LL.B. in 1971 from Makerere University in Kampala, Uganda
and in 1972 my family and I were required 10 leave Uganda on extremely short notice
as refugees from the Amin government's persecution of persons of Indian ethnicity.
7. From 1972 to 1979, I attended the Harvard Law School, Harvard Universrty.
received my LL.M. in 1974, and my S.J.D. in 1979.
8. In 1979, I served as Research Assistant to the Official Guardian of Ontario, in
what is now called the Children's Lawyer's Office.
9. In 1980, I secured a one-year teaching contract at the Faculty of Law,
University of Windsor. The Dean at the time was Ron Ianni. My starting salary of
$20,132.00 was below the floor in the CollecUve Agreement for such pOSitions, and was
adjusted upwards, but only to the floor, after I was hired. Apart from Dr. Ianni , the Dean,
I was the only member of the Faculty of Law at that time to have a doctorate in law.
10. In 1981 , I secured a tenure-track position in the Faculty of Law at the Assistant
Professor level , and in 1984, I was promoted to Associate Professor, with tenure. I did
not have any difficulty securing tenure and promotion to Associate Professor.
11 . I served as a member of the Status of Women Committee of the University of
Windsor Faculty Association (WUFA) from 1983-88 , on the EXecutive ofWUFA in 1985-
86, and as Vice-President, External ofWUFA in 1987-88.
12. When I became President ofWUFA in July 1988, I became aware of the details
of an agreement signed between the University and the Faculty of Law in the spring of
1988, for the distribution of an Anomalies Fund created by Article C 12 of the Collective
Agreement to provide salary adjustments to members of the Faculty of Law. Professor
Jeffrey Berryman was one of the two negotiators of the agreement on behalf of the
Faculty of Law. The other was Professor Robert Kerr, since deceased.
- 3-
13. In October 1988, WUFA filed ~ grievance on my behalf alleging arbitrary and
discriminatory distribution of the Anomalies Fund at the Faculty of Law. At that time, my
salary was the most anomalous within the Faculty. I was being paid less than the two
other persons hired the same year as I was, even though they both had three years
less post-LL.B education than I did. The distribution scheme negotiated by Professors
Berryman and Kerr, which included a cap on the overall recovery possible from the
Fund, left me as anomalous as I had been in relation to these individuals, and still left
me in the situation of having the most anomalous salary within the Faculty.
14. In March 1990, arbitrator Gail Brent found that WUFA had "proven, on balance,
a prima facie case of systemic discrimination on the basis of sex .. . both in the
establishment of the grievor's hiring salary and in the distribution of the anomaly fund".
The Arbitration Award contains a detailed account of the salary discrimination against
me.
15. The arbitrator found that the appropriate remedy was that the University should
redo the distribution of the fund which had been done improperly the year before (a
remedy which WUFA had not requested), and that she did not have the jurisdiction to
order the remedy requested by WUFA which was to order the University to award the
me the sum of money I would have received if a cap had not been put on the amount
received. After many discussions and negotiations with University President Ron lanni,
he appointed an internal University committee which decided unanimously in January
1991 that I (and all the female faculty members) should be compensated appropriately,
retroactive to July 1, 1988. A year after negotiating the distribution of the anomalies
fund, Jeffrey Berryman became Dean of the Faculty of Law, commencing his term in
July 1990.
16. In the spring of 1990, I applied, unsuccessfully, for the position of Associate
Dean . A white colleague, Professor Donna·Marie Eansor, was appointed. Professors
Jeffrey Berryman and Maureen Irish were the faculty members on the search
-4-
committee. Professor Eansor, while a very competent young colleague, had neither
the academic qualifications nor the experience that I had at that time.
17. In academic years 1989-90 and 1990-91 , I was a member of the University
President's Advisory Committee on Women's Issues, and in 1990-91 , a member ofthe
University's Planning Committee on Race Relations, and of the Employment and
Educational Equity Advisory Committee at the University. In 1991-92, I was a member·
of the President's Commission on Prejudice and Discrimination.
18. Having served as the Chair of the Employment Equity Committee of the Ontario
Confederation of University Faculty Associations (OCUFA) (1990), and on the OCUFA
executive, I became OCUFA Vice-President in 1993. I served as President of OCUFA in
1994 for a one-year tenn.
19. From 1996 to 1999, I served at the request of the President of the University,
Dr. Ianni, as the first Commissioner of Human Rights at the University of Windsor. I set
up the University's Human Rights Office, hiring support staff and organizing an Office
that would receive and investigate complaints as well as carry out educational initiatives
regarding human rights. Working with apprOXimately seven unions on campus, leaders
ofthe various student groups, non-unionized staff and the University Counsel, I
developed a comprehensive Human Rights Policy for the University. The policy
encompassed substantive obligations as well as a process for investigation and
resolution of complaints.
20. The Human Rights Policy which I developed stated on its face that it should be
reviewed within five years of its adoption, but the University has not done that. The
Human Rights Office which I set up has been slated for over a year to be converted into
a Human Rights, Equity and Accessibility Office but the UniverSity has not done this yet,
and the original Human Rights Office operates in the interim under a temporary director.
- 5 -
21 . In academic year 1998-1999, I applied for promotion to full Professor. A
promotions oommittee at the Faculty of Law, oomprised of Professors Moon, Bill Conklin
and Marcia Valiante and chaired by Dean Westmoreland-Traore rejected the application
although both of the external reviewers had recommended promotion.,
22. I appealed to the University Committee on Appointments, Promotion and
Tenure (UCAPT), which draws its membership from the University as a whole, and
UCAPT unanimously overturned the decision of the Faculty of Law.
23. I have been a full Professor at the Faculty of Law since 1999. I teach, write and
research in the areas of International Law, Family Law, Immigration Law and Human
Rights.
24. I have served on a number of law school Committees, including Admissions,
Discipline, AppOintments, Equity, MBNLLB, Promotion Tenure and Renewal, and Law
Foundation. In addition to my human rights and equity work at the University level, I
have served on the University Senate, as a member of UCAPT, as Chair of the Campus
Safety Audit Committee, and as Chair of the Senate Strategic Renewal Committee. In
2008, I was the Chief Negotiator for the University of Windsor Faculty Association,
successfully leading WUFA in negotiations for a new collective agreement between the'
University and its faculty and librarians.
25. In addition to my keen interest in mentoring students on an informal basis, I
have for twenty years been the coach of the Faculty of Law team for the Jessup Moot,
one of the premier national and international mooting competitions. I have worked with
law students to establish Justice at Work, a highly successful annual event where
students' who are interested in careers in social justice are able to meet and learn from
lawyers already established in the field in Ontario and elsewhere. I have initiated and
done the fund-raising for two scholarships at the University, including one where the
money was raised solely from Windsor law alumni.
-6-
26. My service to the Windsor community includes being a member of the Board of
Directors of the United Way of Windsor, a member of the Big Sisters Association of
Windsor, the Windsor Committee of the National Organization for Visible Minorities, the
Mayor's Committee on Children's Services of Windsor, and the Board of Directors of the
South Asian Centre of Windsor: I have also served as the President of the Board of
Directors of the Roman Catholic Children's Aid Society of Windsor. These activities, and
others I have undertaken in the community, have involved fund-raising along with other
responsibilities.
27. My activities in the legal profession include being a member of the Gender
Issues Committee of the Canadian Bar Association - Ontario, and serving as a member
of the Board of Editors of the Canadian Journal of Women and the Law (1984-91) and
the Review of International Business Law (1985-89). In 1992, I served as the Chair of
the Ontario Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee. I also served as a member of
that Committee in 1995-1996. Currently, I am a member of the Advisory Committee of
the African-Canadian Women's Human Rights Project, a collaboration among
academics and activists in Canada, Ghana, Malawi and Kenya to advance women's
rights that is entirely supported 'by fund raising in Canada and internationally.
28. I was named Windsor Woman of the Year in 1993, and in 1994 was honoured
with the deSignation Honorary Big Sister by the Big Sisters Association of Windsor. In
2006, I received an Honourary LL.D. from the Law Society of Upper Canada, and the
Feminist Legal Analysis Section of the Ontario Bar Association gave me its
Commitment to Equality Award in 2009. In 2010, I received from the University of
Windsor Faculty Association the Mary Lou Dietz Award for Equity Leadership.
-7-
35. During our work to enhance opportunities for women and members of visible
minorrties at the Universrty, I and other activists have followed three principal strategies.
One is to put in place decision-making processes which are transparent and fair; it has
always been thought that if the process itself is transparent, it will produce objective
decisions not tainted with bias. The second strategy has been to strive for
improvements in employment equity, so that more women and persons of colour could
move into teaching, professional and leadership roles on campus. The third has been to
work for improvement of the climate on campus, by addressing systemic human rights
abuses, workplace bullying and power imbalances; by making space for a variety of
religious beliefs, and making evident the entrenched privilege of white male faculty and
University leadership .
36. My recent activities within the Faculty of Law are consistent with these
strategies. I believe they have been seen as threatening.
37. In December 2007, I moved a motion at Faculty Council in the Faculty of Law
to end the practice of cancelling classes on the Jewish High Holidays. The students at
the Faculty of Law observe a variety of religious holidays, for almost all of which classes
are not cancelled . My motion was aimed at treating in the same way most student
absences for purposes of religious observance: classes would not be cancelled and
class notes or recordings would be made available to students taking time for religious
duties. Although I could do nothing about the statutory preference for Christian
holidays, when the University is closed , I wanted to place other religions on an even
footing .
38. The motion generated considerable discussion and debate at the law school.
Professor Moon confronted me in the presence of a support staff person and asked me
if I had clearly thought about the implications of my motion and proceeded to inform me
that it was a very bad idea. I politely disagreed. Professor Moon opposed the motion
strenuously at Faculty Council. The motion nevertheless succeeded with a clear
majority.
-10 -
39. The notice of motion, and the actual motion that was passed, provide as
follows:
In light of the ever-increasing religious and cultural holidays that are now an everyday part of life in Canada, I believe that it is time for us to set out a clear statement about our policy on the subject. I am therefore giving notice of motion Regarding the following resolution that I would like to place before Faculty Council:
Recognizing the tremendous religious, ethnic and cultural diversity amongst our student body, faculty and staff, and in the spirit of the Canadian Charter and Human Rights legislation, be it resolved that henceforth the Faculty of Law, University of Windsor will no longer cancel classes for any specific religious observance, but will provide reasonable accommodation for all students, staff and faculty who are unable to carry out their responsibilities due to a desire to observe religiouS/cultural practices.
40. In the past two years, I have twice taken a position in favour of adhering to
the University's hiring procedures in connection with the appointment of junior faculty at
the Faculty of Law. In both cases, strict adherence to such procedures might have
rendered uncertain (but by no meanS have precluded) a particular result desired by the
Dean and a group of senior members of the faculty. The University's hiring procedures·
were not adhered to in either of these cases, and my advocacy for compliance with
them was seen by proponents of these particular hires as threatening and
confrontational. I have leamed over the course of my advocacy for employment equrty
that in the long run equity and fairness are best served by openly following established
procedures and not by quietly bending or ignoring the rules to achieve a desired result
in a particular case.
4. Decanal Search
(a) Rules for Dean Search
41 . The rules and procedures for a Dean search are established by By-law 10 of
the Senate By-laws.
- 11 -
42. By-law 10 provides that the Dean of a Faculty is the leader of his or her
Facu~y and shall possess the appropriate qualifications therefore.
43. Article 2.2.1 of By-law 10 requires the establishment of a Search Committee,
composed of the Provost and Vice-President Academic as chair, -three to six faculty
members elected from and by the regular faculty, an Employment Equity Procedures
assessor, student members and up to two staff, professional or community
representatives determined by the Search Committee.
44. Article 2.3.2 of By-law 10 requires that the search process shall be initiated
normally fifteen months prior to the expiration of the term of the incumbent Dean. Article
2.3.4 requires that at least one calendar year prior to the expected date of appointment
the Search Committee shall report to the Faculty Council and the President setting out
its proposed agenda, including its mode of operation , schedules for the search
procedure and schedules for the submission of periodic reports to the Faculty Council
and the President.
45. Article 2.3.6 of By-law 10 requires that the Search Committee prepare a
short-list of candidates (one to three) and obtain views and comments in an appropriate
manner from members of the Faculty Council. The short-list shall normally be
announced to the Faculty Council six months prior to the expected date of appointment.
46. Article 2.3.8 of By-law 10 states that following a search, the Search
Committee shalf propose the name of a single candidate in writing with appropriate
supporting material to the Faculty Council. This provision requires that the Committee
submit the name of one of the two (or three) short-listed candidates to Faculty Council if
the search has progressed to the point of having such a short-list. At a meeting called
on five calendar days written notice, the Faculty Council shall consider the
recommendation of the Committee. Voting at the Faculty Council shall be by secret
ballot, and a simple majortty of the votes cast is required to endorse the named
- 12-
candidate. Article 2.3.9 requires that the name of the candidate endorsed by the Faculty
Council shall be submitted to the President.
47. If the Candidate recommended by the Search Committee is not endorsed by
the Faculty Council, Article 2.3.10 of By-law 10 requires that the search Committee
shall reconsider its recommendation. If the second candidate recommended by the
Search Committee is not endorsed by the Faculty Council, then the Search Committee
can be reconstituted.
48. If the candidate endorsed by the Faculty Council is not accepted by the
President, Article 2.3.11 of By-law 10 requires that the Search Committee reconsider ~s
recommendation. If the Search Committee's second recommendation is not accepted
by the President, the Search Committee is required to be reconstituted.
49. Article 2.3.12 of By-law 10 outlines what the Chair of the Search Committee
can do if the search is not progressing. If the Chair of the Search Committee declares
that a lack of Committee progress requires it, he or she may request that the Faculty
Council decide among the following alternatives: that the Search .committee agenda be
altered , that an acting appointment be made or that the Search Committee be
reconstituted.
50. If the reconstituted Search committee is unable to make a recommendation,
or if their recommendation is not endorsed by the FacuHy Councilor the President,
Article 2.3.13 of By-law 10 provides that the President may recommend a candidate to
the Board of Governors.
fbi My Candidacy for Position of Dean
51. Dean Bruce Elman being scheduled to complete his second term on June 30,
2010, a Search Committee for the position of Dean of the Faculty of Law was struck in
the spring of 2009. The Chair was originally Provost Neil Gold ; when he received a one-
- 13 -
year appointment as Vice-President, International of the University, he waS succeeded
as Chair by Kate McCrone, then acting Provost and Vice-President Academic.
Membership on the Search Committee included the following members of the full-time
faculty at the Faculty of Law: Larry Wilson, Donna Eansor, Moira McCarney, Laverne
Jacobs, Chris Waters (Associate Dean) and Jeffrey Berryman. Other members of the
Search Committee were Judge Mary Jo Nolan, Michelle Pilutti of the staff at the Faculty,
and the President and Vice-President of the Student Law Society, Arun Krishnamurti
and Omar Raza. The Equity Assessor was Clinton Beckford , Associate Dean of the
Faculty of Education . The search firm of Odgers Berndtston , Toronto, was retained to
assist in the search.
52 . The advertisement for the position of Dean was published in October 2009. It
described as follows the attributes being sought:
A distinguished academic, the new Dean will continue to expand on the Faculty's themes of Access to Justice and Transnational Law, while providing professional direction and collegial leadership. A member of the University's senior management team, the Dean of Law will have experience in academic administration, will be a visible and vocal champion of the institution and the Faculty, and will be active in raising their profile and increasing support for their· continued expansion. .
53. The advertisement also stated that the University of Windsor is committed to
equity in its academic policies, practices, and programs; supports diversity in its
teaching, learning and work environments; and ensures that applications from members
of.traditionally marginalized groups are seriously considered under its employment
equity policy. Among those identified as likely to contribute to the further diversification
of the Faculty and its scholarship were women and 'members of visible minorities.
54 . The description of the Faculty of Law appended to the advertisement
described the key themes of the Faculty as Access to Justice and Transnational Law,
which run through research, teaching and learning. It emphasized that the school's
admissions policy ensures a diverse and dynamic student body.
- 14-
55. The material accompanying the advertisement also identified the following
attributes and proposed activities of the new Dean:
• As a member of the University's senior management team, the Dean will seek to enhance relationships with local, national, and international governments, the profession, donors, alumni, and community leaders, so as to raise the profile and influence of the Faculty and the University. .
• Building on the Faculty's existing reputation and its recognized strengths in the fields of transnational law and social justice, the new Dean will find ways to enhance the profile of the Faculty overall . This is an overarching priority ...
• Thus, an immediate priority for the new Dean will be to continue and expand this effort to attract and retain first-class teaching and research talent, from within Canada and around the wo~d .
. • The new Dean will be expected to engage the Canadian university community on an academic level , including attending and encouraging attendance at conferences.
• Building on the University's commitment to renewal and innovation, it will be incumbent upon the new Dean to explore Canada's legal education landscape in search of topical, vibrant, and innovative communities of scholars with which Windsor Law may wish to connect.
• The position of Dean, Faculty of Law is emphatically an opportunity to help make good on those promises regarding the role Windsor will play in the renewal of the Windsor-Essex community, particularly given prevailing economic and attendant social conditions in the Region.
• At the heart of the Windsor Law educational experience there is support for making the concepts of transnational law and Access to Justice pervasive. The new Dean will review the way the concepts of transnational law and Access to Justice are integrated into the curriculum.
• If Windsor Law is to continue to champion the advancement of social justice and transnational law, ij will be a priority for the new Dean to build a comprehensive support network to assist graduates in finding work in related areas. The new Dean will work creatively with students, faculty, and professional groups to explore alternative careers in the legal profession and to define Windsor Law as an institution that actively supports its students in finding new ways to put their skills into service - while at the same time ensuring that they have the uriderstanding and skills necessary for the more traditional practice of law.
• That being said, increasing the diversity of the program remains an internal priority, and one that enjoys support at all levels of the UniverSity community. This also means enacting initiatives to support students with disabilities and being sensitive to the needs of visible and other minorities.
• To be successful in this endeavour, the new Dean must be someone who genuinely enjoys the external aspect of his/her role, as well as someone who considers the fundraising pursuits of Deanship to be a worthy responsibility.
- 15-
56. In any selection process at the University of Windsor, each candidate is
assessed against the qualifications outlined in the advertisement; an evaluation grid is
created to evaluate each candidate systematically, and scores are assigned to the
candidate for each qualification on the grid. This evaluation produces the short-list and '
ensures that each candidate on the short-list meets the advertised requirements. Short
listed candidates are then assessed by way of an evaluation grid, to measure their
performance in the interview with the Selection Committee. The assessment of short
listed candidates will also measure their performanoe in other activities taking place
after the short list is announced .
57. I submitted my application for the position of Dean by letter dated November
26, 2009. In the first week of February 2010, Professor McCrone advised me that I was
one of four candidates who would be participating in a preliminary round of interviews. I
was interviewed on February 15, 2010, for two hours. Dr. McCrone advised me by
telephone on February 21 that I was on a short-list of two individuals. On February 27,
2010, I was asked to provide a list of nine referees, which I forwarded to Odgers
Berndtston.
58. Subsequently, I learned from some of the referees whose names I provided
that they had been interviewed in quite a cursory manner by someone telephoning from
South Africa , on a bad telephone connection, on behalf of the search firm. I also believe
that letters of reference from other supporters were not placed in their entirety before
the Search Committee.
59. The week of March 22, 2010 was established for the interviews of the two
short-listed candidates and other activities requiring the participation of both of us.
Among the activities I took part in that week on the initiative of the Search Committee
were a meeting of the Windsor Bench and Bar hosted by Judge Nolan (March 23),
meetings with other Deans and the University President (March 24), a Town Hall
meeting at the Facufty of Law (March 24), a meeting with Dean E;lman of the Faculty of
Law (March 25) and a two-hour interview with the Search Committee (March 25) . On
- 16-
March 26, I flew to Toronto to meet with alumni of the Law Faculty, and had a further
meeting with an alumnus on March 27. As far as I am aware, the other short-listed
candidate took part in most of the same activities. As these meetings progressed, I was
receiving positive feedback from my colleagues and others, and it was becoming
evident that my candidacy had a strong chance of success.
60. On March 24, 2010 the day before my crucial final interview with the Search
Committee, Professor Moon surfaced with spurious allegations that I had committed
plagiarism during my co-authorship of an immigration and refugee law casebook
between 2003 and 2006. Professor Moon forwarded to Dr. McCrone on March 24, an e
mail in which he made allegations of a ''very serious" problem of plagiarism, which
"when discovered required that the chapters prepared by Emily be recalled from the
publisher and repaired/rewritten by the other editors". He acknowledged in his e-mail
that his knowledge of this issue was second-hand, and acquired almost two years
before from Professor Audrey Macklin, one of my co-authors, whom he had married
subsequent to our collaboration on the book. He suggested that Dr. McCrone might
wish to contact the co-authors of the book, who "have copies of the chapters Emily
originally submitted and the sources that were not properly referenced". Professor
Moon made these allegations to me and to Professor McCrone bye-mail and he also
discussed them with other members of the Faculty of Law.
61 . Professor Moon's reasons for making these spurious allegations at the
eleventh hour are highly suspicious. Had he seriously been concemed that an academic
offence had been committed, he had ample opportunity to raise the issue through the
proper processes at any time after he allegedly learned of them, which was almost two
years before the search. He did not ever do this. Rather, he raised them at a time and in
a manner that would do maximum damage to my reputation and candidacy, without
subjecting his allegations to the testing or scrutiny of a hearing where I had standing
and an opportunity to respond .
- 17 -
62. As I sought to explain to the Committee, from 2003 to 2006 I collaborated with
three other scholars to prepare'a casebook on Immigration and Refugee Law. I was
primarily responsible for chapter 1, a history of Canada's immigration policy. The
manuscript was circulated amongst the co-authors tor two years before being submitted
to the publisher; some of the co-authors taught from it. It was part of a blind peer
reviewed process early in 2006. I was not advised of any issue with respect to my
chapter until after the galley proofs were prepared. When one of the co-authors, Don
Galloway, was reviewing the galley proofs supplied in 2006 by the publisher, he told me
bye-mail that he had found instances where I had not given sufficient attribution to one
particular source. He did not identify for me in this e-mail , or at any time since, the
specific problems in attribution which he claimed to have found. Nor did he give me the
opportunity to insert the attributions myself. Rather, he secured approval from the co
authors to do the work himself, and I agreed because I was in England dealing wrth a
family emergency. Professor Galloway made substantial alterations to the galley prOOfs
of my chapter, removing my material outlining the history of racism in Canada's
immigration policy. He had not discussed with me beforehand his intention to make
such extensive revisions, nor had he secured my permission to do so, My review of the
original chapter in 2010 disclosed no problems in attribution justifying this re-write. I did
find that I had made voluminous attributions to the author identified by Professor
Galloway. At no time in his dealings with me about the alleged shortcomings in
attribution had Professor Galloway alleged plagiarism, as Professor Moon later did. Nor
did my co-authors ever make that allegation, either when the matter first came up or in
2010.
63. In reviewing the whole Galloway incident at the time of the Dean search in
March 2010, I concluded that I should have resisted more sturdily Professor Galloway's
comments about my chapter. I came to see his focus on the attribution issue as a way
of providing himself with an opportunity to remove material on racism which he believed
should not have been included. I was the only person of colour on the four-person
writing group ..
- 18-
64. In handling Professor Moon's allegations of plagiarism, Dr. McCrone
committed several serious violations of my rights. She did not provide me wtth a copy of
the Moon e-mail of March 24 until March 30, even though she had previously raised
these allegations with the Search Committee, and indeed raised them with me in the
presence of the Search Committee at the end of my final interview by the Committee on
March 25 before I had seen Moon's e-mail to her.
65. She told me that the Search Committee had considered Moon's allegation to
be of sufficient seriousness to request that she contact my co-authors, and she did
contact them. They all emphasized the urgency of showing the Committee my original
chapter and the source mentioned by Professor Galloway, so that the Committee could
make up its own mind on the basis of the facts. At her request, I provided to Dr.
McCrone a copy of chapter 1 and the book by Valerie Knowles I had used as a source.
She told me in an e-mail sent March 28 at 11 :37 a.m. that she wanted to provide this
material to the Committee so that they could "see the material in question for
themselves". In a letter to me of April 6, Dr. McCrone stated that "given that the Dean is
the highest academic officer of a faculty, the Search Committee has a responsibility to
ensure that the issue that has arisen is clarified".
66. Despite all of these assurances, Dr. McCrone did not provide chapter 1 to the
Committee so that it could make up its own mind, a fact I learned only on the morning of
April 7, the day I was to have a final meeting with the Committee, so that I could
address these accusations.
67. Dr. McCrone did not tell me who made the decision that the Committee would
not review the chapter and the source, or why that decision had been made. I was
surprised and disappointed that the Search Committee was not given this material,
especially in light of Dr. McCrone's assertions that the Committee has a responsibility t9
clarify the issues. I nonetheless attended the meeting of the committee on April 7 and
made a detailed statement rebutting the allegations. The Committed posed no
questions, and no discussion with the Committee ensued. Neither the Committee nor
- 19 -
Dr. McCrone ever made a statement dealing with Moon's allegations even though I had
specifically stated in a letter to Dr. McCrone of March 31 that in the circumstances I was
entitled to a "clear statement from you negating the very damaging allegations made
against me". The allegations were left hanging over me to blight not only the Dean
Search but also my future. They create a poisoned environment at the law SChool, and
the academy generally.
68. On March 31 , 2010 at 11 :43 a.m. one of my colleagues sent Dr. McCrone by
e-mail a detailed analysis of the so-called plagiarism, and evidence of computer
searches totally invalidating the allegations. Dr. McCrone refused to put it before the
Committee, writing in an e-mail at 10:21 a.m. on April 7: "your ... communication dated
March 31 with respect to 'plagiarism', with attachments, provides your personal analysis
of the matter. It is the search Committee's responsibility to determine whether or not
they wish to undertake such an analysis themselves. As such it would be inappropriate
to provide it with your communication ... I will not be distributing it to the Committee".
However, Dr. McCrone had already put before the Committee Moon's allegations, which
were not backed up with any evidence or analysis. I believe that Dr. McCrone gave the
Committee a copy of Moon's accusatory e-mail of March 24, as she provided it to me,
and told me in her April 2 e-mail that "everything provided to the Committee will be
provided to you". It is also surprising to me that Dr. McCrone told my colleague on April
7 that "it is the Search Committee's responsibility to determine whether or not they wish
to undertake such an analysis themselves" (emphasis supplied) when she had already
assured me that they would do so, and requested material from me to facilitate that
analysis.
69. Dr. McCrone never advised me of the role Professor Moon's overblown ,
hearsay-based, allegations of plagiarism had played in the Committee's decision
making, even though I asked her to do so on at least two occasions. The response of
Professor McCrone and the Committee to the Moon allegations did not give me a fair
opportunity to counter and dispel them. Although they received submissions from me in
writing on March 31 and in writing and orally on May 7, they never examined the original
- 20 -
documents, as the co-authors had urged, and thus did not give me an opportunity to
address any concerns they had on the basis of that review.
70. I believe that the behaviour of Professor Moon in bringing these allegations
forward , and the serious irregularities in the way Professor McCrone and the Search
Committee dealt with them, would not have occurred had the Faculty of Law not been
on the brink of choosing a woman of colour as its Dean. The allegations of so-<:alled
plagiarism presented a convenient pretext for the denying me the position. The actions
of Professor Moon and the Committee (including its Chair) amount to discrimination
against me on the basis of race and sex.
71 . In addition to the failure to deal appropriately with the Moon allegations, the
Committee committed serous breaches of By-law 10. Article 2.3.8 of By-law 10 imposes
a mandatory requirement that following a search , "the search committee shall propose
the name of a single candidate in writing with appropriate supporting material to the
members of the .. . Faculty Council." To fulfil this requirement, the Search Committee
must actually choose between the two short-listed candidates.
72. Dr. McCrone did not require or permit the Search Committee to choose, by
vote, between me and the other short-listed candidate. Rather, she presided over a vote
which included the option of choosing neither candidate. This approach is
unprecedented in searches at the University of WindsDr. As Chair, Dr. McCrone should
have required the Committee to choose one candidate or the other.
73. The Committee voted in favour of chOOSing neither candidate and thus never
weighed or discussed the merits of the two short-listed candidates as required by the
By-law. These irregularities were brought to President Wildeman's attention on April 9,
2010 and he indicated his support for this procedure. Dr. McCrone reported to the
Faculty Council at the Faculty of Law on April 14 that the Committee had voted to
recommend neither candidate, thus depriving the Faculty Council of its assigned
responsibility of considering the Committee's recommendation. This approach runs
- 21 -
counter to the requirements of By-law 10. If the Committee had been deadlocked after .
going through the proper evaluation and discussion, and proper voting procedures, By
law 10 spells out what is to follow. Nowhere does By-law 10 provide for the procedure
followed by Professor McCrone.
74. At the Faculty Council meeting on April 14, Dr. McCrone advised that the
Search Committee had voted to recommend neither candidate. She told the Faculty
Council that neither candidate met the requirements for the position. Dr. McCrone did
not give reasons for this conclusion . Nor has she ever advised me personally why the
Committee decided I did not meet the requirements of the posrtion.
75. The Faculty Council voted to strike a new search Committee and do another
search. This procedure does not comply with Article 2.3.12. A new Search Committee
was struck on April 28, 2010. Dean Bruce Elman has been appointed Acting Dean for.
the year 201 0-2011. The appointment of Dean Elman as acting Dean would not stand in
the way of my appointment as Dean, should the Tribunal make such an order. However,
appointment of a Dean after the conclusion of this second search may do so, and I will
be pursuing interim relief to halt the search process and prevent the appointment of a
new Dean under By-law 10 until this complaint is finally resolved. The Universrty has
refused my request to suspend voluntarily the search process to permit my complaint to
be heard.
76. I believe that the violations of By-law 10 committed after April 7, 2010 reflect
the Search Committee's indecent haste to dispose .of my candidacy, and constrtute
discrimination against me on the basis of race and sex.
77 . I meet all of the required criteria for the position of Dean of the Faculty of Law,
and believe that I am the only one of the two short-listed candidates to do so. The
appointment was denied to me because of discrimination on the basis of race and sex,
on the part of the Faculty of Law and the University of Windsor (responsible for creating
the Search Committee and for its actions) and Professor Moon. Put quite simply, the
- 22-
Faculty of Law and the University of Windsor, in spite of the lip service paid to equity .
and social justice, did not want a visible minortty woman as Dean of the Faculty of Law,
no matter how well qualified. Moreover, my decades of advocacy on behaW of equity at
the University, an integral part of my identity as a visible minority woman, had left them
in nO doubt that in my Deanship I would do more than pay lip service to equity, and this
prospect was unwelcome. Professor Moon's allegations of plagiarism provided a
pretext to justify resistance to my candidacy for the Dean's position. Rather than
investigating and dispelling them, Dr. McCrone and the Search Committee left them to
linger to serve as a pretext for not recommending me although I met every requirement
for the position. That Professor Moon was able to sabotage my candidacy for the
Deanship through defamatory allegations based only on hearsay, with no accountability
for his behaviour, illustrates that the University and the Faculty of Law have, through
their systemic discrimination on the basis of race and sex, created an environment of
impunity for individual acts of discrimination.
B. Complaint of Systemic Discrimination on the Basis of Race·and Sex
78. Like the Faculty of Law, the University of Windsor has now, and has always
had, a leadership almost exclusively comprised of white males.
79. Since 1980, when I first came to the Universtty, ali the Presidents have been
white males. Since 1980, ali of the Vice-Presidents Academic have been white males,
with the exception of Dr. McCrone, who was acting Provost and Vice-President from
July 2009 to April 2010 , the period comprising the Dean Search. A new position of Vice
President Teaching and Learning, created in 2007, has a white male as its first
incumbent. The Vice-Provost, Students and Registrar has been a white male since the
position was created in 2005. Similarly, the only two incumbents of the position of
Associate Vice-President Academic Affairs, created in 1999, have been white males.
White males have occupied the position of Vice-President Finance '(Iater Finance and
Administration) since 1981 .
- 23-
88. A Review Committee on Employment Equity (RCEE) was formed in 1987,
pursuant to Article 30 in the Collective Agreement, dealing with employment equity.
The RCEE, comprised of representatives from the administration and the faculty, was to
investigate and report on whether serious gender imbalances existed in the composition
of academic units at the University, recommend hiring goals to address such
imbalances, review the University's actions to achieve the hiring goals recommended,
and report its findings and recommendations annually to the Senate, the Universrty and
the Faculty Association.
89. The RCEE made its first report in 1988, and reported a·nnually until 1995. In
that year, it submitted rts Sixth Report, urging implementation of th~ recommendations
of past reports. Of particular concern was the failure of the University to set goals and
timetables for hiring visible minorities, Aboriginal peoples and persons with disabilities to
parallel the eXisting goals and timetables for women. When the University took no
action on these recommendations for two consecutive years, the RCEE stopped
meeting, and did not resume until it was reconstituted in 2007.
90. The lack of meaningful progress on equrty from 1993 led to the creation of the
President's Working Group on Equity Review (WGER) in 2004. Its 2005 Report, which
was approved by the Senate that year, found that there had been a considerable gap
between the original policies arid procedures for implementing employment equity
adopted by Senate and their implementation . It found that overall implementation of
employment equity had weakened gradually over the years to the point that many of the
important details of the original program, such as having goals and. timetables for hiring
members of the four groups designated by the Federal Contractors Program, had been
lost.
91 . The WGER observed that the Senate had not acted on two requests from the
Review Committee on Employment Equity to establish goals for the designated groups
of visible minorities, Aboriginal peoples and persons with a disability. After 2000, when
the initial timetables for reaching the equity goals of hiring women faculty had expired,
- 26 -
no new goals were established . With the expiry of the initial goals for women's hiring,
the University was thus, as of 2000, without goals or timetables for 'any of the
designated groups. This left the RCEE, whose mandate was to monitor implementation
of goals and timetables, with nothing to do.
92. WGER recommended in 2005 that Senate set goals and timelines for
representation of women and visible minorities. It also recommended that Senate
establish a separate task force for each of Aboriginal peoples and persons with a
disability to bring back recommendations on specific programmes to encourage the
identification, recruitment and hiring of well-qualified candidates from these areas. The
University administration failed .to implement any of these recommendations.
93. Pursuant to a recommendation in the WGER report that an external expert
with significant expertise in employment equity issues in the University setting be
retained , Dr. Rebecca Coulter of the University of Western Ontario was retained to
advise Senate, and in April 2006 she submitted her report, Making it Real.
94. Among her recommendations was that specific goals and timetables for
meeting equity objectives be set, monitored and evaluated by means of a reconstituted
Review Committee on Employment Equity. This has not been done. The University of
Windsor does not now have goals or timetables with respect to any of the four
designated groups.
95. Among the other recommendations of Dr. Coulter which have not been
implemented are that:
• a system emphasizing rewards and incentives for achieving equity goals should be introduced although it must be balanced with an ability to impose sanctions when necessary
• a culture of equity must be built on the campus through educational programming and practices, the provision of resources to new and emerging programs, and on-going support for members of the designated groups
• strong, informed, consistent and timely leadership must be offered in support of equity, and
- 27-
filing of the report on the RCEE's first year of operation which was required to be filed by
May 2008. This impasse brought to a halt the work of the reconstituted RCEE.
99. During 2007-2008, the RCEE had prepared a memorandum of its planned
equity strategy, and submitted it to the· President and the Provost for their endorsement.
This approach was adopted because of Dr. Coulter's advice that "If equity culture is to
become a reality at the University of Windsor, it must begin with strong, consistent and
on-going leadership". The memorandum was discussed with the President and Provost
and redrafted to take into account their comments and concerns. Outgoing University
President Ross Paul gave the report a strong endorsement and undertook to endorse
the RCEE proposal to Dr. Alan Wildeman, who had been chosen to succeed him.
Provost Neil Gold (formerly Dean of the Faculty of Law) was not willing to provide a
written endorsement of the revised RCEE proposals, though he said he had a personal
commitment to principles of equity. The Union appointees to the RCEE concluded,
'Without the formal , written endorsement from the Provost for the RCEE
recommendations, there is nothing more to be done by the RCEE at this time".
100. In a report on the RCEE's work in 2007-2008 prepared by Professors Emily
Carasco and Pamela Milne, WUFA appointees to the Committee, it is concluded:
The senior Administration of the University of Windsor has chosen to continue its empty commitment to the principles of equity without any substantive mechanism to move the institution toward real equity. Little progress has been possible in the past without this commitment and the RCEE does not think meaningful progress can be made in the future without it.
The University of Windsor's current equity efforts are, and .have been for the past 12 years, in failure mode. As the Coulter report indicated , "making it real" depends on the emergence of equity leadership within senior Administration. Such leadership is not yet evident. Senate can adopt and approve documents and recommendations such as contained in WGER and Coulter but if those recommendations are not implemented by the Administration, then no progress toward equity is ever to be realized at the University of Windsor. The work of the reconstituted RCEE is also at a standstill because senior Administration has failed yet again to agree to implement the strategy developed by the committee. More time, more work and still no product.
- 29-
101. President Wildeman and the new Provost Dr. Leo Groarke have not made
any commitment in writing to the employment equity strategy proposed by RCEE since
taking office. Nor have they made any other form of concrete ccmmitment to the
achievement of employment equity.
102. President Wildeman has not complied with Art. 30.01 (b) of the 2008
Collective Agreement, which provides that:
Within one hundred and eighty (180) days from the signing of this collective agreement, in the context of the President's plans for a comprehensive campuswide approach to employment equity, the President will publish a detailed plan and timetable with respect to implementation of the recommendations of the Coulter Report.
103. In May 2009, President Wildeman announced in his President's Update (#3) a
plan to create an Office of Human Rights and Equity which was to be established in July
2010. This Office has not yet been established. There is no mention in this Update or
any other since, of the Coulter Report or of a detailed timetable for the implementation
of the recommendations in the Couner Report.
104. Significantly no President or Vice President Academic has set goals or
timetables for hiring women or visible minorities in senior administration positions .
105. In March 2007, President Paul received a Report to the President on Matters
of Racism and Discrimination at the University of Windsor, prepared by Campbell
Aliens Consultants Inc. The report was ccmmissioned by Dr. Paul as a response to
student ccmplaints about discriminatory ccnduct on the part of the management of the
student pub. The consultants were asked to look into concerns ofracism and
discrimination on campus and to make proposals to overcome these problems. This
Report made a number of findings and observations.
106. In reporting on visible minority students' perceptions, the Report noted that
over and over again, the "whiteness" of the University was cited as a contributor to the
- 30-
students' feeling of not belonging. It continued , "It cannot be refuted that, with one
exception, the Senior Management Group of the University is white and mostly male.
Despite the fact that the Federal Contractors Program continues to find the University of
Windsor's equity program to be in compliance, and despite some progress in this
regard, the University's own employment equity report shows that the Faculty is
overwhelmingly white as well , with the exception of certain faculties wherein visible
minorities are clustered. In general, visible minorities have little, and aboriginal people
almost no presence in supervisory or staff positions across the University".
107. The Report observed further that students have the perception that those in
power positions do not understand the stress associated with seldom being able to deal
with authority figures that "look like them". Those who have never encountered this
have trouble understanding it. Even though the University administration and faculty
"understand" equity issues, students report that they perceive a feeling of "us v. them"
when issues arise such as the Pub dress code, or more recently the controversy over
the Sports Weekend activities on campus. On the one hand, administrators say they
are engaging in consultation, but the students perceive tokenism at play. With regard to
Sports Weekend, the students involved in the negotiations allege the existence of a
double standard when comparing the Sports Weekend to other similar campus events
involving a predominately white student base. Administrators proudly cite the existence
of policies relating to human rights, equity and anti-racism while students and others
point to the gaps in the practice of those goals.
108. As a further example of what they see as a disconnect .between policy and .
practice, the students cited the President's State of the University address on January
26, 2007. In it, the President did speak to his belief that "we have a tremendous
richness of diversity on our campus and we absolutely must do more to ensure that all
of our students, faculty and staff take advantage of it. We must learn to do more ... as
must all universities in the 21 st century" . Because the President did not directly refer to
either the University's commitment to social justice or the actions being undertaken in
that regard, the omission was deemed' to be an indication that the Administration does
- 31 -
not take the issue seriously. Further, it gives strength to the students' fear that the
"commitment" is dubious and this inquiry is merely "window-dressing" that will not result
in any meaningful changes related to the students' experiences and perceptions of
racism, racial profiling and discrimination against racialized and other marginalized
students.
109. The Campbell Aliens study alluded to the poor reception accorded the Coulter
Report. It observed that Dr. Coulter's recommendations, specifically those relating to
setting timetables and goals for implementation, have not been acted upon as yet:
The 2005/2006 Action Plan listed Employment Equity as one of the top ten goals, and the WUF A Collective Agreement is clearly in support of equity measures (See Article 30). The Report on Key Performance Indicators, which helps to assess how well the University is meeting the goals it has set in a wide range of endeavours, lists Equity and Diversity and as an indicator but that it will only be reported on triennially. Thus, it is not available in current reporting, and there is no mention of it in the Plan for 2006/2007.
A more recent report, Forly years later, how are university women doing? by Janice Drakich and Penni Stewart published in Academic Matters, February 2007, provides evidence that women are making strides in both faculty and administrative hirings, but even then it appears that "women continue to be clustered both as students and faculty in feminized disciplines; women faculty are not appointed to the rank of full professor at the same rate or speed as men; and women continue to be under-represented in senior administrative positions". Sub has Ramcharan's work in 2005 made similar observations, and pointed to the dismal failure of the University to include Aboriginal people in any occup<,tional category save food and services.
This plus the lack of progress on other equity initiatives leaves racialized students and faculty feeling that their issues, and those of Aboriginal people, persons with disabilities and other marginalized groups, are not being respected. They and those who support equity feel inferior and demoralized. Perhaps the powers that be are simply "slow to act", but in any event, the lack of communication about the action plan relating to equity hiring programs contributes to the belief that the issue is not on the administration's radar screen. There is a fear that if equity hiring plans are not implemented, the University will not capitalize on the opportunities presented by the pending retirements of those taken on during the hiring boom of the late 1960's and early 1970's.
- 32-
114. University of Windsor president Alan Wildeman would not comment on any
specific anecdotes in the report, but he noted that campuses are cross-sections of
society. "It is not surprising that things are happening on our university campuses that
are also happening across our society in general." Wildeman pointed to the University's
creation of a human rights, equity and accessibility office (which has not yet been
accomplished although the deadline for doing so was July 2010). "We always
encourage people who have concerns of this type to bring them forward , so that we can
look into them - and if there have been wrongs committed, do all we can to correct
those wrongs."
115. President Wildeman's reference was to case-by-case investigation of
complaints. He made no reference to the absence from University of Windsor of an
effective strategy to address systemic discrimination.
116. The University of Windsor has a long record of paying lip service to the goal
of equity, while doing little or nothing to advance that goal. Its inaction has left intact the
structure of white privilege within senior ranks at the University, and fostered
expectations that such privilege will continue undisturbed. In such an environment,
resistance to the initiatives of visible minority scholars to get through the glass ceiling
into senior professorial ranks and administration is normalized, and occurs with
impunity.
C. Effect on the Complainant
117. This University's handling of the Dean Search is the most difficult thing I have
had to deal with in my entire career. It may well be naive but I did really believe that my.
candidacy would be assessed on the basis of merit. I now realize that as far as some
people are concerned , I am not entitled to the treatment that they take very much for
granted. This is a hard thing to accept - that in 2010 in Canada, a woman of colour, no
matter how well qualified , is still not treated in the workplace the way members of the
dominant group in Canada are treated. I feel betrayed both by some of my colleagues
and by those in power within the system who permit this kind of behaviour to go
- 34-
unchallenged. II is particularly hard 10 swallow in a conlext where I am surrounded by
individuals who claim Ihallhey undersland and live by Ihe values Ihal underlie human
righls law.
118. I don'l know if I can describe Ihe slress and Ihe shock I experienced during
Ihe last two weeks of Ihe decanal search process. Professor's Moon personal attack on
me was very painful and Dr. McCrone's inexplicable handling of illefl me
psychologically bruised and wilh a sense of hopelessness in relalion 10 Ihe damage
done 10 my credibility and repulalion. Over Ihe lasl few weeks I have been asked
dozens of limes by fanner sludenls, people in Ihe communily and beyond , 10 explain
why I did nol gellhe posilion. I have been unable 10 do so. I have carried Ihe weighl of
Ihis evenl with me every single 'day since il occurred . I don'l know Ihall will ever be Ihe
same - nol so much because I did nol gellhe job - bul because of how il happened
and how many people permitted ilia happen.
D. Remedy
1. Wilh Respect 10 Professor Moon:
1. Public relraction of his allegalions of plagiarism
2. Damages for injury 10 dignily iri Ihe amounl of $15,000
2. Wilh Respecllo Ihe Faculty of Law and Universily of Windsor discriminalion againsl me:
1. Appoinlmenl of Dr. Carasco as Dean of Law by Presidenl Wildeman, for a full
five-year lerm wilh Ihe opportunity for renewal ;
2. Damages for injury 10 dignity in Ihe amounl of $60,000
3. An inlerim order slaying Ihe Dean search by Ihe Committee appoinled April 28,
2010, and requiring Ihal an Actin\l-Dean be in place until the final disposition of this
complaint.
- 35-
3. With Respect to Systemic Discrimination:
1. Establishment by the University within six months of the. date of the Order of a
data base, goals and timetables for the four groups of women, members of visible
minorities, Aboriginal people, and persons with a disability, in accordance with the
recommendations of the Coulter Report and the RCEE proposals of 2008.
2. Establishment of an employment equity program in accordance with the Coulter
Report within a period of two years of the date of the Order.
3. An order requiring the University to report back to the Human Rights Tribunal
within 6 months to establish its compliance with the order in paragraph 1 hereof
and within 2 years to establish compliance with the Order in paragraph 2 hereof.
4. Comprehensive equity and human rights training for all senior administration at
the University, from the level of Dean to President, and training of Equity
Assessors as recommended by Professor Coulter.
5. Within one year of this Order, complete and report on a Consultation with
University of Windsor students about means to promote and support student
diversity, and implementation of the recommendations of those consultations within
two years of the date of the Order. A report to be produced by the University at the
end of the second year from the date of this Order outlining its progress on
implementing the recommendations of the Report, and distributed widely through
the University and the student community.
- 36-
· .